A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[Red Badger]

Well on the WB cartoons they dress up in sheep costumes...........and punch a time clock......Mornin', Ralph...Mornin', Sam...............

[FreedomProtector]

The last paragraph makes a good point and is well written. There is a funny line in last paragraph. It is quite funny because of the size of understatement. (Meiosis is a figure of speech that intentionally understates something --sort of an opposite of hyperbole/exaggeration)

"Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much."


The first point an evolutionist will make whenever anyone advocating intelligent design mentions anything remotely close to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics [The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Every isolated system becomes disordered w/ time.]....the first thing an evolutionist will point out is that sunlight provides the necessary energy to increase entropy....i.e. the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off


for example from Tim M. Berra, "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism"

"For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shipping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the earth's living systems and allows them to evolve."


This is funny in a couple of ways:

1) there is intelligence putting the bike together

2) It is so improbable that it is funny that someone could believe that sunlight+some ridiculous amount to time+chance and natural processes could arrive at life as we observe it today.


last paragraph deserves repeating...


Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.

[sittnick]

Really, about the only area in which we differ is in our beliefs regarding supernatural entities.

That's not a very large difference, it seems to me.

It is an essential difference. It changes the basis for our rights and responsibitlies and the very meaning of our existence. It makes us come up with different results over the question of whether man is better than the dumb beasts of the world, or only different. The "Why" of everything changes. "why" shouldn't you kill a human. "Why" should you sacrifice your life for someone you know, or an idea, or someone you haven't met, "Why" mercy killing or suicide is right or wrong.

It is what changed Whitaker Chambers from being a hardcore Communist to risking his life fighting against them.

For me, anyway, it provides hope, the ability to continue to love those who died, purpose, a moral framework larger than any imperfect government can provide, a way to (imperfectly, I'm afraid) try to see good in people I'd just as soon not like, and finally a way of thinking and looking at the world that is consistent with my own nature: a desire for order, and a love of creativity and higher ideals and purpose.

[sittnick]

Oops, I meant to say that it IS a very large difference.

[ryan71]

Good discussion, MineralMan.

"That's not a very large difference, it seems to me"

I used to not think it was a very large difference either. As humans we all must have faith in something; God, beer, the environment, whatever. Since I've put my faith in God, it has made an enormous difference in my life.

[ConservativeDude]

Since you can obviously "do" some philosophy, perhaps you can help with this question?

IF evolution is geared towards survival, that is, if species evolve and adapt, over time, hanging on to that which is useful for survival, discarding that which is not...and assuming that human beings are at the end of that process....THEN doesn't it also follow that a brain geared for survival is not capable of doing cosmology?

Or to put it another way, why should we believe the speculative arguments of brains which are produced from an evolutionary process?

Or to get to the heart of the matter: aren't evolutionary biological arguments ultimately self-destructive?

(Note: That is just one of the philosophical problems I have with evolution. There are plenty more but I have never really been able to dialogue philosophically with scientists. They either dismiss philosophy, or are simply incapable of it).

[MineralMan]

"I used to not think it was a very large difference either. As humans we all must have faith in something; God, beer, the environment, whatever. Since I've put my faith in God, it has made an enormous difference in my life.
"

I'm sure it did make a difference in your life. That's true of most people with regards to their beliefs about the supernatural.

Still, there are so many other aspects of life than that. We have most of those in common, I'd think. I just believe in one less deity than you do. [grin]

[Alter Kaker]

Well, it works one of two ways. If you try to say evolution is random then evolutionists will say no, because natural selection is the acting force on those mutations. But when you try to say evolution is NOT random (IE, designed or something) they'll say no, because the thing natural selection acts on is random mutation.

Evolution is neither random nor designed. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Natural selection is exactly what it sounds like: natural (as in natural, not designed) and selection (as in non-random).

[Alter Kaker]

We can use a (purportedly) 50,000 year old horse, if you like.

A 50,000 year old member of the equus genus would likely not have been able to easily breed with a modern horse. Equine evolution has been remarkably well documented.

We group things together according to similarities but the construct is of course, artificial by definition. (e.g. by one standard peanuts are regarded as nuts, but by others they are not nuts).

Huh? Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes. I don't believe that there is any taxonimical controversy over their classification.

[ThinkDifferent]

If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not

Ah, the always popular proof by assertion. It may interest you to know that evolutionary algorithms are a common programming technique, using recombination and mutation and fitness functions which result in increasingly better solutions. ("But it takes intelligence to create the evolutionary algorithms!" Yes, and a creator could have configured the initial conditions of the universe, or even seeded the first life forms; the theory of evolution doesn't forbid either).

[ryan71]

You caught me. Not many people actually worship beer.

[ThinkDifferent]

THEN doesn't it also follow that a brain geared for survival is not capable of doing cosmology?

Exactly the opposite. Abstract reasoning and general intelligence are very useful for survival, and also allow us to examine the world scientifically.

[Tallguy]

Are you sure of that? Perhaps a wolf can outrun a man in a short sprint, but I don't think any four-legged critter can outrun a human over distance.

Dogs are very efficient trotters. They push game to exhaustion before they sprint. Many of their prey animals are actually faster over short distances, but not over longer distances. Dogs are smart enough to switch tactics to suit the game & situation. I wouldn't want to be pursued by a pack without cover or weaponry.